PofoliaShared via Pofolia

· 2016

Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision

Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens et al.

Short summary

A new network design, Inception, efficiently scales up convolutional networks by factorizing convolutions and using aggressive regularization, achieving state-of-the-art results on the ILSVRC 2012 classification challenge.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Introduced the Inception architecture for efficient scaling of convolutional networks.
  • Utilized factorized convolutions and aggressive regularization for improved efficiency.
  • Achieved 21.2% top-1 and 5.6% top-5 error on ILSVRC 2012 classification.
  • Demonstrated strong performance with a computational cost of 5 billion multiply-adds and <25 million parameters.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Convolutional networks are at the core of most state of-the-art computer vision solutions for a wide variety of tasks. Since 2014 very deep convolutional networks started to become mainstream, yielding substantial gains in various benchmarks. Although increased model size and computational cost tend to translate to immediate quality gains for most tasks (as long as enough labeled data is provided for training), computational efficiency and low parameter count are still enabling factors for various use cases such as mobile vision and big-data scenarios. Here we are exploring ways to scale up networks in ways that aim at utilizing the added computation as efficiently as possible by suitably factorized convolutions and aggressive regularization. We benchmark our methods on the ILSVRC 2012 classification challenge validation set demonstrate substantial gains over the state of the art: 21:2% top-1 and 5:6% top-5 error for single frame evaluation using a network with a computational cost of 5 billion multiply-adds per inference and with using less than 25 million parameters. With an ensemble of 4 models and multi-crop evaluation, we report 3:5% top-5 error and 17:3% top-1 error on the validation set and 3:6% top-5 error on the official test set.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source., 2016 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionComputer Science